Was Leo Frank innocent or guilty?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Rome's rightful successor

Holy, Roman, and an Empire
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
The murder of Mary Phagan is a tragic and fascinating topic and is part of the many things that made 1913 a turning point in american history.
I personally don't know much about the circumstances of what happened but I find it interesting that this created the adl and they blamed the black guy over the jew.


1660912431001699.jpg


This is one of those historical events that it's taboo to question the historical narrative on.

But was Leo Frank really innocent or guilty?
 
Last edited:
And 2 years prior, 3 Jewish Families co-opted America's currency with the unconstitutional FED ponzi. Setting the nation on track to the debasement we have today. Ever gonna talk about that ADL?
 
I find it damning how the two lead suspects were “a lower-class black man” and “a wealthy, white enough man”, and it was the white enough guy was who everyone suspected.
In the racist, lynch happy, Jim Crow era South, Frank’s defense team couldn’t shift the suspicion to the black guy.
Really makes you think.
 
I find it damning how the two lead suspects were “a lower-class black man” and “a wealthy, white enough man”, and it was the white enough guy was who everyone suspected.
In the racist, lynch happy, Jim Crow era South, Frank’s defense team couldn’t shift the suspicion to the black guy.
Really makes you think.
And Leo Frank actually tried to frame the other black guy, the nightguard who absolutely had nothing to do with it. Planted a bloody shirt on his property if I remember right.

Such an innocent man that Leo Frank.
 
His pardon is blatant bullshit. A jury of his peers found him guilty and he was duly convicted. Then a bunch of carpetbagging fellow tribesman rode in to cover for the sick fuck. He got exactly what he deserved, what the rule of law had ordered.
 
The most damning evidence to me was one-the Jewish press tried to gin up anti black sentiment when the trial didn't have national attention and then veered away from it, when Yankees got involved.

This is supposedly the South in the height of Jim Crow, where a nigger would be lynched supposedly if they looked at a White person longer than a millisecond, much less accused of rape.

And the southern jury did not buy Frank's claim it was the black man-when all social norms, pressures, as well as outside media agitation were agitating for his innocence. Somehow a Southern White jury missed a chance to lynch a nigger, because that's what they did right? To condemn a Jewish industrialist and businessman.

I'm sorry, it doesn't make sense.

Frank was guilty.
 
If you asked me this question ten years ago I would say he was an innocent man and those southern bigots just wanted to murder the guy because he was jewish. However after rethinking a lot of what occured back in the south in the early 1900s it makes me wonder if perhaps it was the black man playing up the innocent negro act but another part of me thinks that maybe Leo frank indeed was a guilty man.
Many times people seem to forget law and order is oftentimes decided at the end of the rope.
 
If Leo Frank is guilty, then his supporters are on the same level as those who defend Gilles de Rais and Si Ouey.

If Leo Frank is innocent, then the ADL is making a mockery out of his name.
 
I find it fascinating that the people who are willing to assign blame for a violent murder rape of a young white girl to a Jew with no past criminal record over a black man with a history of criminal behavior are the same people who repeat 1352 as if its a mantra. a little consistency would be nice, is all I'm asking
 
He was so guilty that when he tried to blame it on a nigger, the KKK was like no u.
 
Back
Top Bottom